Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
johnnyg08

2018 NFHS Exam

Recommended Posts

Looking for a .pdf of the 2018 FED baseball exam. PM me if you have one. Ours doesn't come out for a while yet and I'd like to get a head start on it before things get too crazy. 

Thanks! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
On 2/11/2018 at 1:33 PM, johnnyg08 said:

Looking for a .pdf of the 2018 FED baseball exam. PM me if you have one. Ours doesn't come out for a while yet and I'd like to get a head start on it before things get too crazy. 

Thanks! 

Check your messages

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, two questions on the NFHS test I would like your guidance on:

1) R2 is on 2nd base, and there is a base hit. As R2 rounds 3rd base, he slips and accidentally collides with the 3rd base coach. What is the ruling?

a) The runner is always out.

b) If the umpire determines the coach didn't physically assist the runner, he should ignore the contact and let play continue.

c) The 3rd base coach can help the runner to his feet.

d) The 3rd base coach can push the runner back to 3rd base.

 

"c" and "d" are obviously incorrect. I believe the answer is "a". My question is...is any physical contact considered assistance if it's during a live ball? Say he's running home as above, collides with the coach, which slows him down, keeps his feet (or even falls), continues home, and still scores. Still consider it an assist, call the out as soon as contact is made?

*******************************

 

2) The bases are empty. The pitcher is in the windup position. He starts his delivery and stops. What is the correct call by the umpire?

a) A ball will be added to the batter's count.

b) This is a balk. The batter is awarded first base.

c) Nothing. The umpire shall call "time" and start the action over.

d) none of the above.

"b" and "d" are incorrect. By rule, I believe the answer is "a", though I have to admit that I've officiated this using "c" the few times it has come up because there's just nothing happening, no advantage gained, maybe the pitcher took a step and thought I wasn't ready or started before the catcher was completely done with his sign, etc. If the answer is "a", I just feel like jumping out on that and throwing a ball on the count is going to bring a coach out, get you accused of over-officiating (especially if it was ball 4), etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Hkepuck said:

1) R2 is on 2nd base, and there is a base hit. As R2 rounds 3rd base, he slips and accidentally collides with the 3rd base coach. What is the ruling?

a) The runner is always out.

b) If the umpire determines the coach didn't physically assist the runner, he should ignore the contact and let play continue.

c) The 3rd base coach can help the runner to his feet.

d) The 3rd base coach can push the runner back to 3rd base.

 

"c" and "d" are obviously incorrect. I believe the answer is "a". My question is...is any physical contact considered assistance if it's during a live ball? Say he's running home as above, collides with the coach, which slows him down, keeps his feet (or even falls), continues home, and still scores. Still consider it an assist, call the out as soon as contact is made?

Incorrect: read 'assistance' narrowly to mean physically helps the runner advance or return by touching him. You are right that (c) and (d) are incorrect, and this reading explains why. Also, as a test-taking strategy, look for responses like (b) that give away the answer: obviously, if we judge that there's no physical assistance, there will be no penalty for violating the "no physical assistance" rule.

50 minutes ago, Hkepuck said:

2) The bases are empty. The pitcher is in the windup position. He starts his delivery and stops. What is the correct call by the umpire?

a) A ball will be added to the batter's count.

b) This is a balk. The batter is awarded first base.

c) Nothing. The umpire shall call "time" and start the action over.

d) none of the above.

"b" and "d" are incorrect. By rule, I believe the answer is "a", though I have to admit that I've officiated this using "c" the few times it has come up because there's just nothing happening, no advantage gained, maybe the pitcher took a step and thought I wasn't ready or started before the catcher was completely done with his sign, etc. If the answer is "a", I just feel like jumping out on that and throwing a ball on the count is going to bring a coach out, get you accused of over-officiating (especially if it was ball 4), etc.

Correct, and since they're testing you on the rules, that's how you should answer. The rest of your considerations pertain to the fairness of the rule (not our concern in the test or on the field) and game management (which is very important on the field but not on the test).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, maven said:

Incorrect: read 'assistance' narrowly to mean physically helps the runner advance or return by touching him. You are right that (c) and (d) are incorrect, and this reading explains why. Also, as a test-taking strategy, look for responses like (b) that give away the answer: obviously, if we judge that there's no physical assistance, there will be no penalty for violating the "no physical assistance" rule.

Agreed -- again, it's why we get paid the $65.  You need to decided if the coach positioned himself to cause contact so Rx would return to third, or if the runner took a poor turn / slipped / etc and made contact.  The question tells you what happened, but it's not as easy to determine on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem, to me, is that the question is a poor one - we need more information (seems to be a trend). We have no idea if he was rounding third and stopping, going to score, etc. No idea what base he ended up trying to go back to. There's a couple scenarios in which I could imagine that being played out and it's assistance (even if not intentional).

1) Guy rounds third, he's being sent home. Problem is, he's (likely) a gone goose at home. He runs into the coach (which stops him early/from getting into a pickle further down the line), and as a result, scampers back to 3rd safely. Without that coach contact, he's out.

A better example...

2) He was trying to stop his momentum rounded third to hold up, slipped and fell, and the collision with the coach actually kept him closer to the base/helped him stop quicker than if he had just slipped/slid along the grass in foul territory. It's possible he's out without the contact, but in this case he gets back to third safely.

To me, simply saying "accidentally collides" doesn't give me enough information.

Side note, I think I had this question on the test last year and got it wrong, and I think I put "b"...so now I don't know what to do :rollinglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Hkepuck said:

The problem, to me, is that the question is a poor one - we need more information (seems to be a trend). We have no idea if he was rounding third and stopping, going to score, etc. No idea what base he ended up trying to go back to. There's a couple scenarios in which I could imagine that being played out and it's assistance (even if not intentional).

Yes and no.

To know whether the judgment mentioned in option (b) is correct—that the coach did not in fact physically assist the runner—requires more information.

But to know that option (b) is the best answer requires no additional info: given the judgment, there is no further penalty.

26 minutes ago, Hkepuck said:

1) Guy rounds third, he's being sent home. Problem is, he's (likely) a gone goose at home. He runs into the coach (which stops him early/from getting into a pickle further down the line), and as a result, scampers back to 3rd safely. Without that coach contact, he's out.

As described, this is not "physically assisting the runner," as it is not clearly an intentional attempt to help a runner advance or return by touching him. Merely the fact that the runner might benefit from accidental contact—which itself would be difficult to assess—does not make such contact illegal. We have to call an out for this: use it only where it is OBVIOUS.

28 minutes ago, Hkepuck said:

2) He was trying to stop his momentum rounded third to hold up, slipped and fell, and the collision with the coach actually kept him closer to the base/helped him stop quicker than if he had just slipped/slid along the grass in foul territory. It's possible he's out without the contact, but in this case he gets back to third safely.

Also legal, and for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In looking at the rule book and the case book, I can't find where it says "intentional" anywhere. Just "assistance." I think that's a big sticking point here. It might be in an interp book I don't have, though - and that's why I brought it up here - I am looking for more clarity. Or are we supposed to infer that "assistance" means "intentional"? I would argue that you could easily "unintentionally assist" a runner.

To me, my second example is clearly assisting him and helped the runner gain an unfair advantage. Intentional? Perhaps not.

So if it's accidental, let it go. What if it's not accidental on the player's part? Let's say the coach stands still, hoping not to get in the way of his runner. Even throws his hands up. The runner uses his coach to help stop his momentum (say he grabs on to his waist as he goes slightly past him) and/or pushes back off his coach to help him get back towards the base. The coach didn't intentionally assist the runner, but the player intentionally used the coach to gain an advantage. By the definition of "not clearly an intentional attempt to help a runner advance or return by touching him," this wouldn't be assisting a runner and an out...which doesn't seem right, but maybe it is.

I think the question is bad but the rule book/case book don't help much here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it this way: the purpose of the rule is to prohibit coaches intentionally helping their runners.

The rule does not aim to prevent collisions. By your reasoning, when a runner slips and falls and so gets back to the base before being tagged (suppose the throw went home), the contact with the ground gave him an unfair advantage. So, we should remedy that by calling him out, because if he hadn't slipped he would have been thrown out at home?

Some advantages and disadvantages are just how the ball bounces. We're not there to fix fortune.

I'm guessing you're a newer official, and if so (even if not so) please allow me to share some advice. Don't pick fly poop out of the pepper. For any infraction, and especially when it is going to create or nullify an out or a score, MAKE IT BIG. When in doubt, err on the side of no-call.

When we no-call action that should have been called, it's forgotten within a week. When we call something that is not there, people remember that crap for years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the 2016 BRD (section 311, p. 208): 

FED Official Interpretation:  Rumble:  If a runner collides with a coach in the box, no interference is called and the ball remains alive. (4/89)

FED Official Interpretation:  Hopkins:  Unless the contact is intentional, it is not interference when a runner crashes into a coach in the baseline. (Website 2001, #12)

2001 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations

SITUATION 12: With R1 on second base, R2 on first base and two outs, B5 gets a base hit to center field. R1 touches third base and advances to home as the throw from F8 comes to the plate. R2 has touched second base and third base when he collides with the third-base coach who is in the baseline watching the possible play at home plate. Before R1 touches home plate, the throw is cut off and thrown to third base where R2 slides back safely. RULING: The play stands with R1 scoring, R2 at third base and B5 at second base. This is not interference by the third-base coach. If he were to assist R2 in getting up, this would then be interference by the coach. (2-21-1c)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on now - there's a big difference between using the ground vs using your coach to help stop yourself.

No, I'm not a newer official, thank you. My point is still this: The rule book and case book are unclear and very brief. Neither say "intentional" in the few times they cover this, at least that I've seen. I said there are probably deeper interp books that explain this better, which is what I'm looking for here. We've covered that if it's accidental, truly accidental, let it go. But what is the definition of assisting the runner? Must it be intentional? Furthermore, can a baserunner use the coach as a device to intentionally stop himself?

I also disagree that it has to be a BIG for it (or anything weird) to be called, depending on the circumstance. But, I get your point - see my other example above, I've not called the "ball" on a start/stop with no one on. So I get it. That being said, I see too many officials let the "big/weird" call go because they are afraid to make it. Say a running lane violation, a balk, an illegal slide, a batter's interference, a guy bunting while out of the box, etc. There are officials I work with that would never, ever call a guy out for contacting the ball on a bunt or swing outside the box. Not worth it to them to have to stop play, call and out, and explain what they have. But is that right? To me, no, but that's just one man's opinion. I don't really care whether something is forgotten about in a week or never forgotten - make the call you think should be made, don't ignore it because it's a weird/tough call/controversial. That line is different for everyone. Not making a call is making a call.  

I called this interference a couple years ago when there was a guy on 2nd, a throw from 2nd to 1st on the BR on which the runner advanced from 2nd, and after touching 3rd, took an aggressive round. 1B pumped a throw to 3rd seeing he was a bit out there, and as he did this, the 3rd base coach stuck out his arm to kind of catch him/stop momentum (perhaps a slight push/lead back) back to 3rd. I called the out. I'm not sure that the runner knew a throw might be coming, but the coach saw it, and basically helped lead the guy back to 3rd by using more than just words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hkepuck said:

In looking at the rule book and the case book, I can't find where it says "intentional" anywhere. Just "assistance." I think that's a big sticking point here. It might be in an interp book I don't have, though - and that's why I brought it up here - I am looking for more clarity. Or are we supposed to infer that "assistance" means "intentional"? I would argue that you could easily "unintentionally assist" a runner.

To me, my second example is clearly assisting him and helped the runner gain an unfair advantage. Intentional? Perhaps not.

So if it's accidental, let it go. What if it's not accidental on the player's part? Let's say the coach stands still, hoping not to get in the way of his runner. Even throws his hands up. The runner uses his coach to help stop his momentum (say he grabs on to his waist as he goes slightly past him) and/or pushes back off his coach to help him get back towards the base. The coach didn't intentionally assist the runner, but the player intentionally used the coach to gain an advantage. By the definition of "not clearly an intentional attempt to help a runner advance or return by touching him," this wouldn't be assisting a runner and an out...which doesn't seem right, but maybe it is.

I think the question is bad but the rule book/case book don't help much here.

Who starts the contact? Did the coach initiate the contact to advance or stop the runner? No, he simply slipped and fell and slid into the coach. You can't look too far into a play like this. Think about the average situation you would have this, wet conditions, runner headed home, MAYBE he scores, maybe he doesn't. But he fell and doesn't have the chance to. I'm sure that's a win for a HS defense, in which the odds of them completing the play to get him out are slim. Nature of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, maven said:

Correct, and since they're testing you on the rules, that's how you should answer. The rest of your considerations pertain to the fairness of the rule (not our concern in the test or on the field) and game management (which is very important on the field but not on the test).

Nobody, including those on the rules committee, want a ball added to the batter's count in this situation.  Considering the pitcher is allowed the drop the ball with no runners with no penalty, it would be beyond ridiculous to penalize him for simply stopping his pitching motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hkepuck said:

2) The bases are empty. The pitcher is in the windup position. He starts his delivery and stops. What is the correct call by the umpire?

a) A ball will be added to the batter's count.

b) This is a balk. The batter is awarded first base.

c) Nothing. The umpire shall call "time" and start the action over.

d) none of the above.

"b" and "d" are incorrect. By rule, I believe the answer is "a", though I have to admit that I've officiated this using "c" the few times it has come up because there's just nothing happening, no advantage gained, maybe the pitcher took a step and thought I wasn't ready or started before the catcher was completely done with his sign, etc. If the answer is "a", I just feel like jumping out on that and throwing a ball on the count is going to bring a coach out, get you accused of over-officiating (especially if it was ball 4), etc.

C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hkepuck said:

Come on now - there's a big difference between using the ground vs using your coach to help stop yourself.

No, I'm not a newer official, thank you. My point is still this: The rule book and case book are unclear and very brief. Neither say "intentional" in the few times they cover this, at least that I've seen. I said there are probably deeper interp books that explain this better, which is what I'm looking for here. We've covered that if it's accidental, truly accidental, let it go. But what is the definition of assisting the runner? Must it be intentional? Furthermore, can a baserunner use the coach as a device to intentionally stop himself?

I also disagree that it has to be a BIG for it (or anything weird) to be called, depending on the circumstance. But, I get your point - see my other example above, I've not called the "ball" on a start/stop with no one on. So I get it. That being said, I see too many officials let the "big/weird" call go because they are afraid to make it. Say a running lane violation, a balk, an illegal slide, a batter's interference, a guy bunting while out of the box, etc. There are officials I work with that would never, ever call a guy out for contacting the ball on a bunt or swing outside the box. Not worth it to them to have to stop play, call and out, and explain what they have. But is that right? To me, no, but that's just one man's opinion. I don't really care whether something is forgotten about in a week or never forgotten - make the call you think should be made, don't ignore it because it's a weird/tough call/controversial. That line is different for everyone. Not making a call is making a call.  

I called this interference a couple years ago when there was a guy on 2nd, a throw from 2nd to 1st on the BR on which the runner advanced from 2nd, and after touching 3rd, took an aggressive round. 1B pumped a throw to 3rd seeing he was a bit out there, and as he did this, the 3rd base coach stuck out his arm to kind of catch him/stop momentum (perhaps a slight push/lead back) back to 3rd. I called the out. I'm not sure that the runner knew a throw might be coming, but the coach saw it, and basically helped lead the guy back to 3rd by using more than just words.

If you think he interfered, call it. If he's in the coach's box or in the area of the coach's box that isn't marked on most of our fields and you judge incidental, let it go.

Don't go looking for trouble. The job is hard enough. Good luck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Mr. grayhawk, using FED case book play 6.1.2 Situation A to support your argument is a stretch according to another member here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

But, Mr. grayhawk, using FED case book play 6.1.2 Situation A to support your argument is a stretch according to another member here.

I don't know who that is, but 6.1.2 Situation A obviously supports my argument.  It's the 20 seconds that is considered important, not the fact that the pitcher aborted his delivery (or dropped the ball).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I don't know who that is, but 6.1.2 Situation A obviously supports my argument.  It's the 20 seconds that is considered important, not the fact that the pitcher aborted his delivery (or dropped the ball).

I'll fess up. I am happy to stretch 6.1.2A to a non dropped aborted delivery but I believe we are stretching the caseplay as will be evidenced by the correct NFHS answer when @Hkepuck 's test is graded. I would be happy to be proven wrong. In the meantime advise pitchers to always drop the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnnyg08 said:

The question does not mention the 20 second rule. Therefore we should not interject the 20 second rule into something that isn't there.

 

Good point, without a time frame in the question, how can we stre_____tch the caseplay to fit the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I'll fess up. I am happy to stretch 6.1.2A to a non dropped aborted delivery but I believe we are stretching the caseplay as will be evidenced by the correct NFHS answer when @Hkepuck 's test is graded. I would be happy to be proven wrong. In the meantime advise pitchers to always drop the ball.

There's a case play in 2017 book that is almost my question #2 above word for word, but it says it's a "balk" since it's an "illegal pitch", but it doesn't mention any runners on base/bases empty (have to assume at least one on). Assuming no one on base, I guess we score that an illegal pitch, ball, for test purposes.

Now whether we enforce that in a game situation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hkepuck said:

There's a case play in 2017 book that is almost my question #2 above word for word, but it says it's a "balk" since it's an "illegal pitch", but it doesn't mention any runners on base/bases empty (have to assume at least one on). Assuming no one on base, I guess we score that an illegal pitch, ball, for test purposes.

Now whether we enforce that in a game situation...

Correct. A.

for real game purposes call time and and point to the catcher, I'm sure he won't mind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hkepuck said:

There's a case play in 2017 book that is almost my question #2 above word for word, but it says it's a "balk" since it's an "illegal pitch", but it doesn't mention any runners on base/bases empty (have to assume at least one on). Assuming no one on base, I guess we score that an illegal pitch, ball, for test purposes.

Now whether we enforce that in a game situation...

I think this is the CP you are refering to:

"6.1.2 SITUATION G:

From the windup position, F1 steps onto the pitcher’s plate with both hands together. As he moves his non-pivot leg behind the pitcher’s plate, he completely stops his motion.

RULING: Balk. This is an illegal pitch."

Note the reference is to rule 6-1-2 where all violations are penalized by this wording: 

"PENALTY (Arts. 1, 2, 3): The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner, a ball is awarded the batter. If there is a runner, such illegal act is a balk. In both situations, the umpire signals dead ball."

Most of us think that CP clarifies that they don't like the "Japanese windup" where the delivery is paused and resumed but the wording also could refer to a stopped delivery. With runners on the violation would be covered by the 6-2-4 Balk rule and a CP with a 6.2.4 notation but there isn't one. So I think you are correct in surmising the correct answer for the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Correct. A.

for real game purposes call time and and point to the catcher, I'm sure he won't mind!

Good call, that's a great out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×